After a string of highly successful and critically acclaimed films by Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, Invictus, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, etc.), I fully expected his latest, Hereafter, to be so well written (screenplay by Peter Morgan -- Frost/Nixon, The Queen) and so compelling that stories about near-death experiences would skyrocket and that I would be preoccupied for months dealing with media inquiries about "true stories" of the hereafter. Alas, and with some relief, this will not happen as Hereafter is possibly the worst film Eastwood has ever directed.
If the hereafter is anything like its filmic namesake, then it will turn out to be glacially slow, eternally boring, and pointless, with seemingly random plot lines aimlessly wandering about the ethereal landscape. I wanted to like this film, despite my skepticism on its subject, because I like Clint Eastwood productions and I'm a sucker for a well-produced story, able and willing to suspend disbelief long enough to get emotionally involved. I tried but failed to do so with this film. It's a bomb. Don't bother to see it in the theaters, and don't even waste a couple of bucks on a Netflix rental.
The only redeeming part of the film was the striking opening scene of the tsunami in Southeast Asia that sets the background for the first plot line. An attractive French reporter leaves her lover in their hotel room to go shopping for his kids among the street vendors below. When he hears a disturbing sound and looks out the window he sees the ocean receding, followed by a massive body of water rushing back in to the shore and slamming into buildings and leveling everything in its path. From the woman's street level view tucked in among buildings she can only see trees felling and chaos approaching with only enough time to realize that there is no time to do anything about it. She is swept up in the tsunami's leading edge and slammed about cars, building debris, trees, and the like, until she is whacked on the head unconscious. Cut to minutes later when she is being given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation by rescuers, to no avail. They give up and move on to the next victim, whereupon she comes to life, after a brief encounter with the hereafter, with Eastwood portrays as a fuzzy, nebulous place with people walking about aimlessly. It's a portent of things to come.
The second plot line is Matt Damon's psychic character George, a former psychic who gave up fame and riches because his "gift" is also a curse. A cross between James Van Praagh and John Edward, George concedes to a reading for a client of his sleazy brother (Jay Mohr) and scores several hits. The brother encourages George to quit his job at a San Francisco dock and return to the psychic world, but he will have none of it as it's just too emotionally traumatic to read people's inner thoughts (that much I suspect is true, if any of it were true, which it isn't). Matt Damon's love interest is the beautiful Bryce Dallas Howard, whom he meets at a cooking class, but after nearly an hour's worth of romantic buildup to some sort of coming together, she departs the film for good after George reads her and conveys the message that her deceased father is sorry for the naughty things he did to her as a young girl.
The third plot line develops around 12-year old twins named Marcus and Jason, who live with their drug-addicted mother in London, England. Jason is hit by a car and killed, leaving Marcus to wander about the city in search of a psychic who can connect him to his brother. Here at least Eastwood had the good sense to depict what most psychics are like -- scammers and flimflam artists conning their marks out of a few bucks by talking twaddle with the dead through standard cold-reading techniques. Marcus is dismayed by the idiocy of these pretenders and finally returns to the foster home where he struggles to keep his sanity.
For an hour and forty-five minutes all three of these plot lines run parallel, leaving audience members to wonder when -- oh please when?! -- will they finally be brought together. Finally, after what feels like an interminable marathon of tedium, George quits his job and takes a vacation in London to visit the home of his favorite author, Charles Dickens. While there he notices a flyer for a lecture about Dickens at a book fair in London, where, per chance, the French reporter is doing a signing for her new book on life after death, which she was inspired to write after an hour and a half of futzing around with her mundane reporter's job distracted by her experience with the hereafter in the tsunami. By chance, little Marcus finds himself drawn to the book fair where he recognizes George from his web page photos, and begs him for a reading, which he finally gets. Naturally, George is better than those phony psychics, and Marcus encourages George to seek out the French woman so that they may all connect to the dead. George and Marie find a love connection as well and the story ends happily ever after.
Never have I been so relieved for a movie to end. There was one memorable moment, however, and that was the opening line of the opening trailer before Hereafter even started. The trailer was for a January 2011 release called The Rite, staring Anthony Hopkins as an American priest who travels to Italy to study at an exorcism school. The line that rather caught my attention as I was settling into my seat, was, "You know the interesting thing about skeptics?" To which I blurted out "No, what?" The answer: "It's that we're always looking for proof. The question is, What on earth would we do with it if we found it?" I know what I do with proof when I find it. I publish it! Another character in the trailer then says "I believe people prefer to lie to themselves than face the truth."
Here, then, in this trailer is the message for belief in the hereafter. If there were proof of it we would publish it to the high heavens, but since there isn't most people prefer to lie to themselves about it rather than face the truth that it is what we do in this life that counts.
Follow Michael Shermer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/michaelshermer
Robert Lanza, M.D.: Is Death the End? Experiments Suggest You Create Time
So what, say I!
I like leisurely paced films, especially in these days of 1000 cuts per minute. Go see a Michael Bay film if you want constant cutting.
Michael should go see Andrei Tarkovsky's work or Bela Tarr's work. Now those films are slow, but beautiful and moving (especially Tarkovsky's work).
Though I am a little disappointed in Shermer, a true skeptic would not only disbelieve in the afterlife but would also be skeptical of being SURE that there is not one. I don't believe in an afterlife but I'm not so sure in that belief that I can't even stomach a film that treats it as real (and that's pretty damn sure in your belief).
Sidenote, "Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey" was most excellent.
He didn't like it because it was a bad movie, not because of the subject. I'm the same way. Religious thrillers and such can be good movies because the fantastic can exist in the confines of the story. But if it's bad, it's just a bad movie.
As Shermer did here, like the movie based on whether it is good or not, not that the story couldn't happen.
Also, history contradicts your premise aa well. There have been long standing relations between the Catholic church and various protestant groups with anti-communist and pro-imperialist groups.
What this film did for me was to inspire some pretty interesting (to me) conversations about that pink elephant in the living room. I'm not afraid of death. I'm personally acquainted with the concept. But while I have first hand knowledge that there's a universal acceptance on the other end, I simply don't do well with change. And yep, death is a big change allrighty.
As for what happens after life, I've always felt that it's kind of arrogant to assume that humans have "souls" that other living creatures don't. I've had pets that deserve "heaven" more than many humans.
And anyway, why does it matter? What, am I going to decide not to die if I don't like the afterword? When I die (I'm not being put in a box), I'll go back to my elemental state and the body I'm currently wearing will once again become bits of carbon, flotsam and jetsam, end of story, end of me.
Proof of Immortality? You decide:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA
Michael Shermer is a professional skeptic in exactly the same sense that Rush Limbaugh or Glenn beck are professional conservatives. It's simply how he has chosen to make his living. The more inflammatory he is, the more money he makes.
I have no qualm with people who don't believe in a god. My problem is with people who run around mainly for profit trying to shake people from a belief that gives them comfort and the courage to face this life.
He is inaccurate when he states "...Marcus encourages George to seek out the French woman so that they may all connect to the dead." Marcus knew George liked the woman and wanted him to be happy, that's all.
But, ironically, this fact points to the theme of the movie, and Shermer inadvertently touches on it via his sarcasm —"it is what we do in this life that counts." None of these three people could be happy in this life until they started LIVING IN IT instead of being obsessed with the afterlife.
It may have been a "classic movie coincidence" that their paths crossed, but coincidences like that happen every day. In fact, such a coincidence would be quite unremarkable if it were NOT in a movie, but happened in real life.
This movie felt like a moody, contemplative foreign film, and if you like that sort of movie, you'll like this one (there ARE subtitles in sections). If you expect spooky, chilling, special-effect glimpses into the nether world that solve life's ultimate mystery, you will be disappointed.
You must have despised Avatar, the Tolkien trilogy, all of the Star Wars films, ET, Close Encounters, Spiderman, Batman...on and on.
I've been an atheist since I was about 5 years old, but I've never fallen into the trap of thinking that a work of fantasy was trying to preach to me about its believability. Let alone hating it for its fantastic elements. You may not have intended it, but your review reads a critique of the subject matter rather than the movie. That's really no help to a reader looking for a review.
Have you ever seen anyone pass? I have seen the most hardened sceptic admit that at that moment, seeing the face hollow and that empty shell then lying before you, is a stunning experience; it's as though one can see a physical wthdrawal and indeed, Life has left the building.
The soul will travel this journey many times to the point when it is no longer necessary. Yes the 'perfection' of a life on earth founded in kindness and love, has everything to do with how many times one soul will suffer the difficult life sojourns. So, imo, you just fail to carry your concepts to the next level.
If you have not done so, please read some Edgar Cayce. Fascinating stuff .. we do know the soul is energy and so it cannot die.. Western culture does not allow for reincarnation but the rest of the world believes it-- it puts the repsonsibility for your soul in your hands and removes it from the influence of Churches, synogogues and mosques. . The process seems to be quite mechanical, btw, not connected to cherubs and flowing robes or harp playing angels standing by, just a trip back to the real "home", wherever that may be.
"... not connected to cherubs and flowing robes or harp playing angels standing by..." You think the cherubs are what he is sceptical about? There is no evidence of an afterlife and that is what he takes issue with. Is it possible there is one? Sure, anything is possible. Do we know there is an afterlife? No, it is not possible to know something if there is no evidence.